From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C80BC4A260C for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2026 14:21:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788358868; cv=none; b=tp5eEghecc4Nwrbn+qVyRRZWu23zI29WUPAsiN8WyKK6M4OrzPPpsSWLl0ogKM1gryGS7wUv9tYuldphfvJIp78y5K/8YUXxtxZ1wGk3GhxMVr9dyE6/N96QxK6oUEnhIVQ4EcdAo09sgd363+IouaJjrTPw0cENBAagFtiQ+x8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788358868; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3MOYxwMzlHt/wAS98xOaW93eYgl1ZjXCZls3cxrkxKE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=XXBvr/BxxK50+Mz/VieIRbRvkOBekNQJ0hc04y/GqFq6s6i/disnB0vACMPpbdAcy5N/cuAsnluiJQTrs+YVT+nDtAfIo+f5wlNNOjQEa0D1Gxsgs8OXuUqKkDCQT/pBwMJoNJTB77NFcjx0svt2GB9GjW89YqJd+sd7OOkg+FI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b=qQpMgolg; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b="qQpMgolg" Received: from macsyma.thunk.org ([104.135.218.91]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 682EJkAM024468 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 2 Sep 2026 10:19:47 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1788358793; bh=3QZBcT9wMwB3DyyvNgzIH17ppYtiwXKFjAiGoY+z9LE=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=qQpMgolgCUEX8Vy7dpklGPyP3D7ZH4XJxWG+IVL6GmAncA+fMUvlm8YnwWtmQT4dV TV9xNSQLEiw2NsioLZWQNqIRjUaFdx4FkN96CtCFgnv1VI2miScdfKdhGDj/XYPEJa 89kDgAOAhkPR50vdBA5jvYy42oI9bqI0DpnbVD8H1fyL8TmyJa1Lcu4iwVSA3mIivh 05bfOjBwXogJdQq/4XtnxHmehk09J7a4x3UQ2GVQZPGwBTgNCq2+S5Xxc/80jok7PR QBPPjskGdk0Yhhhk3LmC7+fTAL6Y10SPcrHFxdTtzrS6pxi4SBqrd568e9HWlNIE81 mUto6Jn7D+bpw== Received: by macsyma.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 5A6F212FC3EA; Wed, 2 Sep 2026 10:19:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2026 10:19:46 -0400 From: "Theodore Tso" To: Jinjie Ruan Cc: bcrl@kvack.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, brauner@kernel.org, jack@suse.cz, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, libaokun@linux.alibaba.com, ojaswin@linux.ibm.com, ritesh.list@gmail.com, yi.zhang@huawei.com, sforshee@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, pmladek@suse.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, senozhatsky@chromium.org, kees@kernel.org, tglx@kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-aio@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] Convert barrier pairs to acquire/release for better performance Message-ID: References: <20260902074805.398540-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260902074805.398540-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 03:47:57PM -0500, Jinjie Ruan wrote: > > This series converts some existing smp_wmb()/smp_rmb() barrier pairs to > smp_store_release()/smp_load_acquire() across various subsystems. I would like to land the ext4 related patches through the ext4 tree, so please detach them from this patch series. That's because I want to be able to monitor the regression testing before sending a pull request to Linus. More generally, I think we should be looking at this kind of barrier conversion on a per site basis. If there is a bug that isn't notice, it can result in a very hard to debug problem. And if the benefit of speeding up a particular code path isn't particularly that great, maybe the cost vs benefit vs risk calculation might cause us to decide to take a pass on the change. Cheers, - Ted